tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9537945.post-48467065894865108612007-12-21T10:54:00.000-06:002007-12-21T10:54:00.000-06:00My thought is more on the topic of accomplishing your first point, which is that the Windows Installer's priorities are not in any way in-line with what their users actually want to accomplish.<BR/><BR/>I hate to go all over the place, but posts about how CA's are evil and terrible are an admission of failure make me wonder (especially when written by Rob Mensching) if they're directed at the community or the MSI team themselves.<BR/><BR/>What should be supported and what is supported are, unfortunately, two different things. In my perfect world, MSI should just provide simple callbacks you can override with whatever the compression algorithm you want can handle. Or they should just leave the compression thing alone and make the best practice that you handle it through your setup.exe or something like that.<BR/><BR/>I don't know what the full solution would be, but I will not argue that their current path is the wrong one. <BR/><BR/>My argument is that most seem to be content with violating the rules and making it a bullet pointed feature. Should package vendors be building the most compressed package available? I guess I don't know. On one hand I say "Yes", but the other hand says "No".<BR/><BR/>But I do know that had the .NET team made customer-friendly decisions regarding their deployment strategy, this conversation would likely not be happening.ShadowWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17170306422408594103noreply@blogger.com